Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia;  Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.

How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom

Post 46. July 12, 2018

    Rational Moral Progress

  The Moral Arc curves upward

Like Steven Pinker, in the Better Angels of Our Nature, Shermer thinks that too many people are pessimistic about the notion of moral progress in humanity, and about the prospects for the future of civilization. One indicator of that dark mood is the pounding waves of post-apocalyptic and natural disaster movies since the turn of the 21st century. Most of them either blame Science for the problems (alien attacks, nuclear war, global warming), or show no confidence that Science can solve them. The humans in these end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it flicks are either zombies, or huddled masses, or mercenary dangerous desperadoes. And the only good guys are typically instinct-driven lone wolves, or small bands of heroes that are martial arts masters, or heavily armed for vigilante frontier justice. Scientists are typically depicted as either insane or in-competent. In most cases, the moral of the story is that the world gets what it deserves for scientific hubris, or capitalist greed, or technology run awry. As a salve for such anti-science, anti-reason, fear & loathing, Shermer's subtitle is : How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, & Freedom.

He quotes Martin Luther King in the prologue : “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. That optimism was expressed in the middle of a chaotic civil rights struggle, and not long before he was assassinated.  Even though King was buoyed by his faith in God's power to overcome obstacles, Shermer has more faith in human reason. “I argue that most of the moral development of the past several centuries has been the result of secular not religious forces.” Then, “As Steven Pinker wrote in The Better Angels of Our Nature, a work of breathtaking erudition that was one of the inspirations for this book.” Pinker said, “we have been doing something right and it would be good to know what exactly it is.” So Shermer's book parallels Pinker's, but with emphasis on the emerging scientific evidence for how we make moral judgments, instead of compiling evidence that morality has indeed improved since the secular Enlightenment.

Shermer defines morality “in terms of intentions and actions that are right or wrong with regard to another moral agent.” Then he defines moral agents in terms of sentience : “emotive, percep-tive, sensitive, responsive, conscious . . . Our moral  consideration should be based not primarily on what sentient beings are thinking, but on what they are feeling.” This stipulation is a personal hurdle for the author when he later addresses our treatment of sentient feeling animals, since he admits to a taste for meat. But by his own definition, moral agents should be treated as equals in moral value & power. As I interpret that egalitarian dictum, the interests of both X and Y must be evaluated as a negotiation between equals. Otherwise, we would be equating apples and oranges : can a pig put the farmer in a pen, and fatten him for the slaughter? If not, how are they moral equals? Human morality is an abstract concept, but most animals act on gut instinct rather than cerebral reason. So, can we depend on them to treat us as we would like to be treated?

Post 46 continued . . . click Next

Michael Shermer :
The Moral Arc
https://michaelshermer.com/